Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Conceptual model outlining hypotheses for factors effecting dry-season wading bird prey concentration in the Florida Everglades.

Hypotheses are delineated by solid or dashed grey and black lines.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

The Everglades of southern Florida and the set of landscape units from which we drew samples.

Small squares indicate randomly located primary sampling units 500 m x 500 m in size. The bounding coordinates of the study site are: North 26.69, South 24.97, East -80.06, and West -81.53.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Mean water depth and rainfall for each day throughout the Florida Everglades from June 2006 to July 2010.

Depth values represent the mean of 42,415 EDEN grid cells throughout most of the freshwater portion of the Everglades. Rainfall represents the mean of 18 rainfall gauges (NE4, NP202, NP203, P33, CR2, A13, NP206, NP62, P36, P34, TMC, NP205, BCA18, BCA19, BCA20, MDTS, S174, S20). Light grey, white, and dark grey bars represent fish, crayfish, and grass shrimp biomass (g m-2), respectively for 2006 to 2010 dry seasons.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 1.

Species are presented in descending order of cumulative frequency representing 99% of individuals captured in throw-traps during 2006–2010 dry seasons.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Mean dry season prey biomass (measured as wet weight) and mean prey length (pooled across all sites) for 2005–2010 dry seasons.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Mean habitat variables and wet season prey biomass from 2006–2010.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Results of generalized linear mixed-effects models of factors affecting fish, crayfish and grass shrimp biomass in the Florida Everglades, USA.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Model-averaged parameters of factors affecting the concentration of fish, crayfish, and grass shrimp biomass.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 4.

Model-averaged predicted values from models with (ΔAICc < 7) plotted against observed values.

(a) fish biomass (gm-2), (b) crayfish biomass (g m-2), and (c) grass shrimp biomass (g m-2). All panels were plotted on log scale.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

The relationship between predicted dry-season fish biomass (y-axis) and recession rate (x-axis).

Low (circles), medium (triangle) and high (cross) levels of wet season biomass.

More »

Fig 5 Expand